what is interesting is the role of the high level officials that some of which are obviously played out in public view. in the end, fani willis decided for whatever reason that she was not going to bring those charges, perhaps because of the additional political implications of it, and the difficulty that it would present for her case, kate. >> interesting. evan, thank you so much. paula, as well. they will continue to work their sources on this. sara? >> we wanted to talk to some of the politics of this, and we want to go to chief congressional correspondent manu raju up on capitol hill. and you talked to senator graham about this, and the biggest revelation about this, and really what we have here is who the grand jury thought should be indicted and who wasn't indicted and what the law is, and we don't have the details of the how they got to that place and the evidence that was put before the grand jury in this 25, or 26-page report. but you have had a conversation with lindsey graham about all of this, and he is obviously a sitting senator, and the one that is going to make the most news frankly from this, and what did he say and what was to take away, and the biggest take away from the conversation? >> yeah, recall that this is right after the 2020 elections, and brad raffensberger spoke publicly about the phone call that he had with lindsey graham, and he believed that lindsey graham was pressuring him, and wanted to get rid of the legal ballots and from raffensperger's view that he wanted to disenfranchise the voters of georgia. and when i asked lindsey graham about that, he said that he was not talking about the 2020 presidential race, but he was talking at the mail-in voting system in georgia and how the verification system worked and how it would work heading into a critical senate race, and there were two senate races in georgia, in january 2021a and the runoffs there, that ultimately the democrats won and took back the control of the majority, and he said that is the focus entirely, and he pus pushed back on raffensperger's claims. >> i am very concerned if you are going to continue to work by mail, and what systems work or don't, and i think that i have every right in the world to reach out and ask how does it work. i thought that it was a good conversation. >> he says it is a emphatic threat. >> no, that is not my intent, and i categorically deny that. i am asking about a race that we have not yet had. we have a senate race come up, and there anything that we can do to make it better? >> you are asking about a senate race come up? >> yes, there is a process, ab you can't change the law retroa retroactively, and there is no way to do that, and whatever system we have for the presidential election, we will live with, and the whole conversation was about the senate race. >> and it is unclear why the special grand jury recommended charges, and whether it is graham's testimony was different in any way or additional evidence about senator lindsey graham's 13 in the affirmative to pursue charges, and 7 in the negative of the special grand jury, and the report does not detail any of that specifically. and we do know that lindsey graham did ultimately testify before the grand jury after he fought a subpoena, and he did not want to testify, and he did not believe it is appropriate to bring a sitting senator in to testify before the panel, and he did fight it, and lost, and so he did cooperate. i talked to him about the testimony before the grand jury, and he said that he cooperated fully, but he refused to provide any details about that testimony. i asked him if he expected to be charged and he said flatly, he did not expect to be charged, and it is going to be interesting to see how his responds to this specific recommendation, and his office has not commented, but with the comments from 2020, he claims that he did not do anything wrong, sara. >> in all fairness, i wanted to say what brad raffensperger said, because he talked to wolf blitzer about what he felt on the other side of the line when he spoke to lindsey graham. we will listen to that. >> you described to the washington post a conversation that you had with republican senator lindsey graham friday, and you came away with the impression that he wanted you the toss out mail-in ballots, and what did he say to you? >> he wanted to know if the ballots could be matched back to the voters and i had the sense that he implied that you could throw those out, and the look at the counties with the highest frequent error of signatures and this is the impression that i got. >> i wanted to be clear on, this mr. secretary, you wanted senator graham to find ways to get rid of legally cast ballots, because cnn asked him about these allegation, and he denied them and he said that is ridiculous. his words, that's ridiculous. >> well, it is an implication that look hard and see how many ballots you could look out, and they are looking at that in part of the court case and one was subsequently filed, wasn't it. >> so you heard his words there. they are different from what lindsey graham is saying. how does he square that? it is on camera, and he is talking about it. >> exactly. perhaps a difference of interpretation, and perhaps the words were, and he said that he applied to throw out the ballots and maybe the words were not as explicit as raffensperger let on, and it is unclear. none of us were on the call, and two men who had different interpretations coming out of the call, but raffensperger did testify himself before the grand jury, and he also talked to the january 6th select committee on capitol hill investigating this, and lindsey graham gave his side of events and didn't talk to the january 6th committee, but a difference of interpretation, and maybe perhaps, sara, there wast in a clear consensus of the, among, the unanimous consent of the grand jury voting 13-7, and not 20-1 as most of the other charges were for donald trump on down the line. >> manu raju, thank you for your reporting today and all of the other days chasing people down on capitol hill. i want to go to kristen holmes, because she has new reporting for us. i knew that you would get it in the next few minutes, and what are you hearing from trump camp? >> yes, a statement from the trump campaign spokesperson, and said that democrat partisan fani willis and the unlawfully constructed politically motivated so-called special grand jury have been exposed as operatives and tools of the radical democrats that they are and in an unbiased american act, the majority of the grand jurors voted to indict dozens of individuals including former and sitting u.s. senators for election integrity and exercising their first amendment rights under the constitution. so, again, this is really the same line that we have heard over and over again, saying that this is partisan, and saying that this is political and pointing to the fact that because there are u.s. senator, and republican u.s. senators, and that is why this is political. one thing to point out here as i spoke to a number of the trump advisers a few moments ago who noted that they believed that because they were thinking about discussing, and indicting the sitting u.s. senators that it would look good for donald trump, because it would look like they were overreaching in some way. now, again, this is what they are telling me. the statement is what we would expect to see which is trump saying it is all political, and one of trump's biggest things that he likes to say, is that they are not coming after me, and they are coming after you, a and i am standing in the way. and so tonight, we will see him in south dakota in a rally, and so that is the first since the arrest in fulton county, and so it is going to be interesting. >> and to be fair to fani willis, she says that she is doing her job, and they did not indict two former senators, and this is not a circle he cannot square. she did not go forward with the charges against them. all very interesting, and we will check back, and see what he says in south and i'm going to toss it to john. >> and thank you, sara. the news is who was not charged. who was not charged. one sitting u.s. senator lindsey graham, and two sitting senators kelly loeffler and michael perdue. and with us is shan wu, and now, to be clear, lindsey graham was not indicted, and the question is why. was it because the special grand jury showed reservations only voting by 13-7 to indict him? is that what caused fani willis trepidation or the difficulty in charging a u.s. senator or maybe the evidence? >> picking between the three, john, it is more likely the evidence. as you have been pointing out, that since we can't see the transcripts and the evidence and seeing a summary here, the votes, i'm a little bit skeptical of that, but there is some distinctions to be made, and having indicted hundreds of grand jurors indictments, i can tell you that the vote did not matter to us, unless it is slim and almost a deadlock to it, but to michael's point, this is a grand jury who had been focused on the one case for a long time, and therefore the weight of those votes might have carried a lot more meaning to the prosecutor in making the decisions. it is also, i don't think that the potential federal official defenses would have bothered this prosecutor very much. that is speculation, but it seems that she would have had the evidence and full steam ahead. it is possible they may have done a good job of themselves in testifying before the grand jury for some of the folks. graham, politicians, sometimes they come across pretty well as witnesses for the down home kind of approach talking to grand jurors and influenced some of the votes, but the prosecutors may have looked at that and said, well, he has a culpable defense here, and maybe not enough evidence to overcome it. i lean more that she had a look at the evidence that we can't see. >> and it is specific that it is not clear what the special grand jury was leaning towards an indictment, but it is the broadest of the national effort to overturn the 2020 election, and the phone call this we are focused on, it is not enumerated here in the report, but it is for donald trump and others and their phone call, and lindsey gr graham's phone call is not listed here. michael, if you can teach a little bit of the law school here so i can understand it, and the viewers can understand in a normal grand jury, and in a normal grand jury, if there is a vote in that grand jury, and it does vote to indict, and even by a margin of one as shan was saying, is the person charged? >> well, and i am glad to be with shan this morning, too. in a normal grand jury, and there is a difference of the state grand jury and federal grand jury, and state grand jury, which is what we are talking about here, and a prosecutor would have to say basically an indictment, and go into state grand jury and say that i want you to investigate this, and decide together which charges we are going to bring, and the rule is that an indictment, and we have to call it laid on the table, and in other words, presented on the grand jury for their consideration, and hear from some witnesses, and hear the evidence and little bit of the summary type of evidence, and then they take a vote. so at that point, if it is up to the grand jury, and if they vote to indictment, and that indictment is issued by the grand jury, and so they are not investigated, and this is the difference of what this report is about, and this report is merely an investigative tool, and we don't use those typically in georgia and that what makes it unique, and gives d.a. the opportunity to subpoena the witnesses and to bring a bunch of people in, and have them talk to the grand jurors over the eight-month period of moving forward with the case, and their report is advisory only. that is different than what you have in a criminal grand jury in the state system here. our state system does not have an advisory grand jury process for the criminal grand jury, and they simply vote to indict or not the indict. the prosecutor uses his or her discretion in decides whether or not to present that indictment to the grand jury, and here she is using discretion in deciding whether or not to accept the recommendations of this special purpose advisory grand jury. so they are different beasts, but the simple answer is that if you were in georgia and the indictment is presented to the criminal grand jury, the vote is going to rule the day. >> right. that is what is different here. both of the things have the words grand and jury in them, but in practical terms, they are very, very different. one is basically an investigatety panel, and investigative commission that issues recommendations, where as if it lays the indictment on the table, and, shan, i hope people understand it, it recommends charge, but it does not mean they were charged or a prosecutor has to bring the charges or ultimately the grand jury has to choose to indict. so, shan, what now? and is there anything in here, and this is sparse other than the votes, and how can the prosecution and defense in the cases that do exist use this information? well, we can't glean too much more of what the prosecution can do with it. they know much more than what is in the sparse report, and the defense as has been discussed, there are some nuggets that have been interviewed if not already contacted by the defense, and it is interesting tdz defense counsel what questions and theories that the prosecution is looking at, and finger pointing, and they are not charged, but now i can blame them and they are the real masterminds and not my client. but one distinction that you made, john, is that there is a little bit of the analogy to the special counsel reports or the old statue independent counsel reports that i have been involved in, and the important difference is that when they are writing the reports the people who are mentioned can comment on it, and earlier tim heaphy was making point that when this grand jury report comes out, the people mentioned they don't have the opportunity to rebut that, and this is significant, but in terms of how it plays out in court, it is difficult to know. and so, these are people who you might want the blame as a defense counsel. >> to read one part of the dissent from one of the grand jurors who voted against indictments for purdue and loeffler and let me read a footnote, one of the jurors recommending indictments for p perdue and loeffler while pandering to a political base do not give rise to a criminal case. >> and that is what is to a criminal trial. so that is going to allow defense to ask the state, what did you do versus what is so different about what my client did. but that is the jury, they are looking for the one juror to hold out, and look, they were not doing anything criminal, and it is bad, but it is not criminal, and they were asking questions about the election. >> all right. michael moore and shan wu, thank you for helping us to understand this. kate? >> we will keep an eye on this, but also more news we are tracking. a philadelphia officer has turned himself in as the district attorney is going to release body camera footage of an incident that happened last month. and nfl is making major strides toward player safety in football. inside look at what they are trying to do to prototect playe' health. ♪ there it is. that feeling you get... when you can du more with less asthma. it starts with dupixent. dupixent is not for sudden breathing problems. it's an add-on treatment for specific types of moderate-to-severe asthma. and can help improve lung function for better breathing in as little as two weeks. dupixent helps prevent asthma attacks... and can even reduce or eliminate oral steroids. can you picture it? dupixent can cause allergic reactions that can be severe. get help right away if you have rash, chest pain, worsening shortness of breath, tingling or numbness in your limbs. tell your doctor about new or worsening joint aches and pain, or a parasitic infection. don't change or stop asthma medicines, including steroids, without talking to your doctor. who knows what you can do when you du more with less asthma. ask your asthma specialist about dupixent. meet the team... behind the team. the coach. the manager. and the snack dad. all using chase to keep up with their finances. the coach helps save goals here, because she saved for soccer camp there. anddd check this out... the manager deposited a check. magic. and the snack dad? he's getting paid back. orange slicesss. because this team all has chase. smart bankers. convenient tools. one bank with the power of both. chase. make more of what's yours. ♪ when you have chronic kidney disease... there are places you'd like to be. like here. and here. not so much here. if you have chronic kidney disease, farxiga can help you keep living life. ♪ farxiga ♪ and farxiga reduces the risk of kidney failure, which can lead to dialysis. farxiga can cause serious side effects including dehydration, urinary tract or genital yeast infections in women and men, and low blood sugar. ketoacidosis is a serious side effect that may lead to death. a rare life-threatening bacterial infection in the skin of the perineum could occur. stop taking farxiga and call your doctor right away if you have symptoms of this bacterial infection, an allergic reaction, or ketoacidosis. farxiga can help you keep living life. ask your doctor for farxiga for chronic kidney disease. if you can't afford your medication, astrazeneca may be able to help. ♪ farxiga ♪ automatically responds to snoring. so, no more hiding under your pillow. because this system actually detects snoring then adjusts to help reduce it. for a limited time, save up to $700 on select tempur-pedic adjustable mattress sets. okay. moments ago, the full special grand jury report was released from fulton county. this the report that explains recommendations for charges against donald trump and some of his allies for their efforts to overturn the 2020 election in georgia and frankly elsewhere. the jurors recommended -- no, jurors recommended charges against 39 people, and 29 of them were not charged. let's turn to fulton county on fani willis' thinking, and nick valencia is outside the courthouse, and nick, what are you hearing from the fulton county, d.a.? >> yeah, very quiet. knotting so far from the fulton county d.a. office, and the cnn crew reached out to the d.a. office and offering no comment from the full report of the special purpose grand jury, and we knew that fani willis was going to be using discretion and how she saw fit to be using indictments best digested by a potential grand jury moving forward and we knew the whole time that the special purpose grand jury was an evidence-gathering mechanism, and we know that fani willis had the reason to compel this, and we have read them by now of the conspiracies that one was a fake elector scheme, and we know that all fake 16 electors in georgia were given target letters and they were targets of fani willis' investigation and it was back in may that we found out from the court filing that they accepted an immunity deal from the attorney general's office. and we know that some of the fake electors were unnamed co-conspirators and we know that david schaffer, and senator shawn steel were fake electors charged in this, and some of them were listed as unindicted co-conpeers or the and the bottom line, we are trying to get comment from the fulton county district attorney's office, but they are tight lipped as they have been throughout the entire process. >> sara? >> and now, joining me is adam smith who is ranking member of the armed services committee. thank you, mr. smith for being with us here, and i wanted to toss something out at you that we just got to